Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA SLI: Linux vs. Windows

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • phoronix
    started a topic NVIDIA SLI: Linux vs. Windows

    NVIDIA SLI: Linux vs. Windows

    Phoronix: NVIDIA SLI: Linux vs. Windows

    It is going on two years since support for Scalable Link Interface (SLI) was introduced into NVIDIA's Linux binary display driver. This support had come a year after it was officially launched and supported by the Windows ForceWare display driver. As we had seen at the end of 2005 with two GeForce 6 graphics cards in SLI, its performance was very sluggish, and there were a number of problems to be found with Linux SLI. While we have routinely tested new NVIDIA graphics cards under Linux SLI internally, there hasn't been much to report on as the experience has been very foul. However, things have changed recently and with the recent NVIDIA 100.14.19 display driver release using GeForce 8 hardware -- we finally have some modest numbers to report on in a Linux SLI configuration. Linux SLI is still far from perfect, but in this article we've used two GeForce 8600GT graphics cards in an SLI configuration under both Linux and Windows to compare the single and dual GPU performance under both operating systems.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=11147

  • Bill Cosby
    replied
    So what about your tests?

    Has SLI performance increased on Linux?

    I am planning on going for SLI

    Leave a comment:


  • jimhood82
    replied
    sorry

    Originally posted by RealNC View Post
    Holy thread resurrection grave digging
    Sorry bout that; was looking for info on the whole SLI in Linux bit... came across this article... despised it, and replied... didn't think to check the date on it.

    Leave a comment:


  • RealNC
    replied
    Holy thread resurrection grave digging

    Leave a comment:


  • jimhood82
    replied
    Only ONE Game?

    Am I the only one to notice that they only used 1 game to compare Linux Vs Windows? Is this because someone got too lazy to test others (like the Doom3 they did the initial Linux SLI review with) or because the numbers did not promote Windows? I have just finished setting up my Linux SLI system - and will do some personal testing, and may even post some results... but this seems like very poor reporting to me.

    If you are going to test and compare, Do it right. I have seen major performance differences like those just from going from XP to XP SP2! OR even from one driver to the next!

    I am sorry that my first post on this forum is not a positive one, but no one else mentioned the obvious... ONE game is not PROVING anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • niniendowarrior
    replied
    I haven't read the article, but this sounds a bit like rubbing salt on the wounds. hehehe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Thetargos
    replied
    I'm sure I saw the option just yesterday afternoon when I was creating a custom config (using menuconfig) using the stock configuration as a template (for precisely 2.6.22.7-85.fc7) I'm not sure, then if 2.6.22.9-91.fc7 does so.

    Aaahhh... Now this is strange. The CONFIG_NO_HZ option supposedly turns the kernel into tickless (it is not present in the x86_64 kernel, there are still issues with tickless and x86_64), I don't know why is the CONFIG_HZ_1000 still set as 'y', though.
    Last edited by Thetargos; 09-29-2007, 05:19 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Moustacha
    replied
    Originally posted by Thetargos View Post
    Th next update for the Fedora kernel (2.6.22.7-85.fc7) uses a tickless kernel for i686. I'm not sure how does that help the overall responsiveness of the system,. though. Will have to test drive one, I guess
    Hmm...You sure?
    Code:
    $ uname -a
    Linux sams.computer 2.6.22.7-85.fc7 #1 SMP Fri Sep 21 19:53:05 EDT 2007 i686 athlon i386 GNU/Linux
    $ grep HZ /boot/config-2.6.22.7-85.fc7 
    CONFIG_NO_HZ=y
    # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
    # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set
    # CONFIG_HZ_300 is not set
    CONFIG_HZ_1000=y
    CONFIG_HZ=1000
    CONFIG_MACHZ_WDT=m

    Leave a comment:


  • Thetargos
    replied
    Th next update for the Fedora kernel (2.6.22.7-85.fc7) uses a tickless kernel for i686. I'm not sure how does that help the overall responsiveness of the system,. though. Will have to test drive one, I guess

    Leave a comment:


  • 1c3d0g
    replied
    I'm wondering why nobody uses tickless kernels...they should be included by most distro's by now, shouldn't they?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X